Opinion For the Americans who supposedly wants to change U.S Electoral laws...

[Fawlty]

Isn't removal of the electoral college basically a way to marginalise voters?

No, it would literally make every single vote count for the same toward electing the president. The precise opposite of marginalization.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Less popular among whom? Urban areas can ruin their areas anyway they see fit and shouldn't have to worry about fucking up all the rural areas too.

This land is your land, this land is my land, and so is Po-land.

Less popular among the people. His argument is one I've heard before: the people with more popular ideas (represented with the metonym the "coasts") should have a smaller voice than people with less popular ideas. I'm asking why. It's counterintuitive to think people with less popular ideas deserve greater representation than people with more popular ideas.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

I think this is the closest we ever came to getting rid of it.

I just can't see it ever clearing the Senate. The current system gives a disproportionate say to small states and their Senators won't give that power up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment

The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971).[1] The presidential election of 1968 resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%), and George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had received only 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.[2]

Representative Emanuel Celler (D–New York), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler Two-round system based on the national popular vote, similar to that used in French presidential elections. With this system, the pair of candidates who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election. The word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President."[3]

On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to 6 to approve the proposal.[4] Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969[5] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.[6]

On September 30, 1969, President Richard Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal, which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1 by Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana).[7]

On October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition and eight were solidly opposed.[8]

On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic Senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, along with Republican Senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate.[9] He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.[10] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.[11]

On September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal[12] and the proposal was quickly filibustered. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.[11] On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,[11] failing to receive the then required a two-thirds majority of senators voting.[13] A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.[14] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971.

 

[Lead]

Then you haven't actually looked at the data. The candidate with the most money wins the vast majority of the time. This is well established.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/

It's not a partisan issue. It's an establishment vs. non-establishment issue.

The money generally keeps non-establishment types who won't serve corporate/wealthy interests out of government. Candidates who won't serve monied interests almost never make it through primaries.

When it comes to servicing monied interests, there's actually very little daylight between the two parties.

For example, the vast majority of the Democrats (including "progressive" Elizabeth Warren) voted for that ridiculous $700 billion military budget that gave Trump even more money than he asked for because they all take cash from defense contractors.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/house-democrats-pass-defense-bill-1588850

https://www.defensenews.com/congres...policy-bill-86-8-setting-up-fight-with-house/

Fair enough. I was thinking about the last two presidential elections but it would be a pretty gross oversight to ignore the house and senate. Keep in mind through both article you posted mentioned the better funded candidate didn’t necessarily win because of the better funding but rather, they may have simply been an overall better candidate which brought in more money or other factors like incumbency which made them seem more likely to be a winner. It’s hard to say for certain how strong a factor the money is having cause if you did something like have the average non incumbent overly funded, how much would that shift the results? I agree though “data” wouldn’t be the right word to use for explanations from the researchers involved.

 

[panamaican]

That's a weird OP. Isn't this the process by which a Constitutional Amendment occurs? You start by building up a public message and gradually getting that in front of the legislatures.

How in the world can anyone guarantee that something gets done before the next election when this is a process that usually takes years.

 

[nostradumbass]

Less popular among the people. His argument is one I've heard before: the people with more popular ideas (represented with the metonym the "coasts") should have a smaller voice than people with less popular ideas. I'm asking why. It's counterintuitive to think people with less popular ideas deserve greater representation than people with more popular ideas.

Because the whole idea of having a country that is a collection of states is that the federal government is minimally intrusive and then state and local governments can have varying degrees of further intrusion and micromanagement. This works both because most policies work better on a smaller scale anyway, so more places can adopt the ones that work for themselves as well, and people can also move if they don't like it without having to flee their country.

Urban and rural people have very different political interests, and I don't see the benefit in allowing densely populated urban areas to politically dominate the rural ones. They can still enact policies for themselves at the state and local level without imposing them on everyone else, which is how the EC gives everyone greater say over their own government and minimizes mob rule and political domination.

 

[K-Bag]

I say we abolish the EC and base our voting system off who has better crayon drawings.

 

[Rod1]

which is how the EC gives everyone greater say over their own government and minimizes mob rule and political domination.

No it doesnt, because how the current system of "winner takes all works" if a State is 51% republican and 49% democrat, logic dictates that electoral votes should be distributed accordingly, except that under winner takes all 51% of a State population decides for the entire State.

EC isnt the problem, the problem is when EC votes arent distributed proportionally.

 

[Rod1]

Isn't removal of the electoral college basically a way to marginalise voters?

The current system marginalized voters even more.

 

[tinker_190]

I say we abolish the EC and base our voting system off who has better crayon drawings.

At least that would tie suffrage to some form of meritocracy...

 

[Cherry Brigand]

Isn't removal of the electoral college basically a way to marginalise voters?

Only voters who are US citizens

 

[K-Bag]

At least that would tie suffrage to some form of meritocracy...

May the prettiest color win.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Isn't removal of the electoral college basically a way to marginalise voters?

Isnt the electoral college a way to basically marginalize voters in a more unfair way?

 

[ultramanhyata]

No, it would literally make every single vote count for the same toward electing the president. The precise opposite of marginalization.

Wait... You want to make the votes of 200 adults living in a high rise apartment building in Los Angeles count as much as the votes of a farmer and his wife sitting on 100 acres in Ohio?? How is that not marginalizing the poor farmer and his wife?? F you and your mob rule mentality!!

 

[ultramanhyata]

Isnt the electoral college a way to basically marginalize voters in a more unfair way?

#tractsoflandarepeopletoo

 

[lifelessheap]

Vote Democrat. Open the borders. Make housing unavailable. Destroy our schools. Become slaves to banks. Hate America. Shit on the street. Let criminals go. Nail workers with tickets, fees, taxes and take all their money. Give free healthcare to illegal criminals.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Because the whole idea of having a country that is a collection of states is that the federal government is minimally intrusive and then state and local governments can have varying degrees of further intrusion and micromanagement. This works both because most policies work better on a smaller scale anyway, so more places can adopt the ones that work for themselves as well, and people can also move if they don't like it without having to flee their country.

Urban and rural people have very different political interests, and I don't see the benefit in allowing densely populated urban areas to politically dominate the rural ones. They can still enact policies for themselves at the state and local level without imposing them on everyone else, which is how the EC gives everyone greater say over their own government and minimizes mob rule and political domination.

The EC doesn't stop one region from "dominating" another through the Presidency. It just makes it more likely that the region that dominates is the one with less people, which takes us back to my original question. Why should people with less popular views dominate people with more popular views?

It's not like the people from the heartland support politically neutral (if there is such a thing) policy at the federal level while the people from the coasts support policies that harm certain people. Take energy policy. In two out of the last five Presidential elections the candidate who got less votes won and had/has an energy policy that is potentially devestating for people living on the coasts. Or Trump's tax cut that capped the SALT deductions, which mainly hurts people in "coast" states. Since a President's policies do not just effect people in the states that voted for him every American should have an equal voice in determining who becomes President.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

“Why should those scum bag New Yorkers who pay for the country and have a higher population than most states decide elections. They shouldn’t be able to. I want north and South Dakota to decide election”

-republicans

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

...particularly with the elimination of the Electoral College as well as mandating additional requirements for Presidential candidates (like tax returns or bill of health), why aren't you campaigning hard right now for an actual Constitutional Amendment to include these new rules that would apply to everyone in future U.S elections?

As if theres a chance at that happening. Murkans view the Constitution and the FF as God himself and theres no way a new Amendment will ever get passed.

People who are anti-EC probably would have a greater chance at staging a coup then abolishing it through force.

 

[Higus]

Isn't removal of the electoral college basically a way to marginalise voters?

Are you seriously going to make an argument that the electoral college is somehow less marginalizing than a popular vote?